svasti śaka-varṣātīta 829 śravaṇa-māsa, tithi dvādaśi śukla‚ ma, po‚ bu‚ vāra, tatkālani pu tabvəl· Anag vanuA Iṁ guntur· punpunaniṁ vihāre garuṁ pinariccheda guṇa-doṣanira de samaggat· pinapan· pu gavul· muAṁ saṁ Anakabvi pu gallam· vanuA I pulu vatu,

samvandhanikaṁ guṇa-doṣa, hana saṁ dharma ṅaranya bapani maṁhampig· saṁkā ri vurakuṁ ya ta tumagiḥ pu tabvəl· tinagihakanya mas· su 1 ndātan hutaṁ pu tabvəl· ya hutaṁ saṁ Anakabvi, makaṅaran si campa‚ vuAṁ sānak saṁ dharma, pajjaḥ puA si campa‚ tinagiḥ ta pu tabvəl· de saṁ dharma, ndātan hanānakni pu tabvəl· muAṁ si campa‚ ṅuniveḥ yar vruha rikaṁ hutaṁ, ya ta mataṅyan· tka ri samaggat pinapan·, ndātan· tka saṁ dharma rikaṁ pasamayān· ya mataṅyan· Inalahakan ta ya de samaggat pinapan·, lavan· tan hana parṇnaḥniṁ hutaṁ maṅkana tumibā riṁ laki-laki yatan paṅavruḥnikaṁ laki-laki, ṅuniveḥ yan· tan hana Anak samvandha,

tatra sākṣī rovaṁ rakryān· Aputu, pu rakak· vuAṁ I taṁkil·, rovaṁ rakryān· haməAs· pu kirat· vuAṁ I timvun· vsi‚ pu saṅgama vuAṁ I guntur·‚ muAṁ guru vaju Anakabvi samaggat pinapan· Atuha‚ nāhan· kveḥniṁ sākṣī byaktinyan· sampun· śuddha-pariśuddha Ikaṁ guṇa-doṣa, likhita-pātra dyaḥ raṅgal· vuAṁ I varasiga.

kunaṁ sugyan tamān paṅujara ya muvaḥ dlāhaniṁ dlāha ya donikeṁ jayapātra. .

829 849 Titi Surti Nastiti's footnote on the reading 829 reveals she hasn't understood Damais' discussion and hasn't carefully checked the plate, because while she reads 829 in her text she says that Angka tahunnya dibaca oleh Brandes 849 Śaka, dan pembacaan Brandes sebenarnya tidak salah whereas the correct reading is definitely 829. punpunaniṁ punpūnaniṁ mas· su 1 ndātan mas· su 1, ndātan Brandes and Titi Surti Nastiti read a punctuation sign after the numeral, but I see none. yatan ya tan Brandes and Titi Surti Nastiti read two words, but only one word is intended here (yatan). Aputu, pu rakak· Aputu pu rakak· Brandes does not read a punctuation sign after Aputu. rakryān· rakryan· Atuha‚ Atuhā‚ Comparing the shape of tarung in the hā in vihāre in 1r2 with the shapes of punctuation signs in this inscription, it seems that one can read either tarung or punctuation sign but not both, so either Atuhā or Atuha, — in the context, the reading with punctuation sign is preferable. byaktinyan· byaktanyan· Traces of an ulu, needed for the sense, are visible on the photographs. tamān ta tān·

Hail! Elapsed Śaka year 829, month of Śrāvaṇa, twelfth tithi of the waxing fortnight, Mavulu, Pon, Wednesday. That was the time when the dispute guṇa-doṣa of pu Tabvəl‚ native of the village of Guntur, domain punpunan of the monastery vihāra at Garuṅ, was adjudicated by the officiant of Pinapan named pu Gavul, along with his wife named pu Gallam of the village of Puluvatu.

The grounds sambandha for the dispute: there was someone called Dharma‚ father of Maṅhampig, originating from Vurakuṅ. He made a claim from pu Tabvəl. A claim of 1 suvarṇa was made by him. But it was not the debt of pu Tabvəl. The debt was of his wife, named si Campa, a cousin vvaṅ sānak of Dharma. When Campa died, a claim was made of pu Tabvəl by Dharma. Pu Tabvəl and si Campa had no children, let alone any that would know about or: acknowledge the debt. That was the reason why Dharma came to the officiant of Pinapan. But Dharma did not come at the appointed time for the hearing. That was the reason why the officiant of Pinapan ruled against him. Moreover, there is no situation that such debt will accrue to the husband, if it is not knowledge on the part of or: ackowledgement by the husband, let alone if there are no children. Such were the grounds.

Witnesses thereof: the assistant of the rakryān of Aputu named pu Rakak‚ a man from Taṅkil; the assistants of the rakryān of Haməas, the first named pu Kirat‚ a man from Timbun Vsi, the second named pu Saṅgama, a man from Guntur; and Guru Vaju‚ the senior wife of the officiant of Pinapan or: the wife of the senior officiant of Pinapan. Such was the number of the witnesses to the evidence that the dispute was entirely resolved. The document was written by dyah Raṅgal, a man from Varasiga.

As for the aim of this victory document jayapatra, it is that even into the future’s future there should no more be any one to discuss it.

Stutterheim () observed that the words tamān paṅujara muvaḥ (which he still quoted in Brandes' reading with tatān) find a parallel in the words tan punaruktā at the end of the Palebuhan inscription. The correspondence of this closing paragraph with the final words preserved of the Laguna plate are even more remarkable.

First decipherment of the inscription by K.F. Holle (); second and authoritative edition, with translation into Dutch, by J.L.A. Brandes (); correction of the reading of the Śaka date from 849 to 829 by R. Goris (); discussion of inconsistencies in the dating parameters and tentative conclusion on the Julian conversion by L.-Ch. Damais (); reproduction of Brandes’ edition, to which is added a translation into English, by H. B. Sarkar (); new decipherment, with some critical notes but without translation, by Titi Surti Nastiti (); re-edited here by Arlo Griffiths based on autopsy and photographs, with citation of variant readings only from the editions by Brandes and Titi Surti Nastiti, but omission of variant readings which concern the interpretation b vs. v in pasangan position, where Brandes often opted for the former and Titi Surti Nastiti correctly opts for the latter.

1-2 I A 299-10173 412-413 136-137 Brandes in 24-29, esp. p. 27 Brandes in 523 164, 167 245 262130 5 15911 64, 69 197 6 17110018 64 4374 50-51A85 195-196 52139 94-95199Nakada refers to pages of Cohen Stuart's Kawi Oorkonden (concerning KO no. XVII), but I don't find anything there. Confusion with the title of Holle's publication? Or with another items from the Dieduksman collection? 113The book does not seem to contain a discussion of this inscription's date.